enforcement holiday in which time they will not be and my understanding that correctly? or am i missing something? it.ou nailed we feel that the people on the border will be included in that group as well. the legislation says that anyone in this gateog -- do we know what that opportunity consists of? >> i do not. >> can you tell me, based on your experience, you come with this unique background that allows you to forecast where the problems might be. what ways can you tell me that

this bill, the one we are now considering, will tend to improve or enhance your ability to enforce the laws? >> it is real difficult for us to say at this point because we are like everybody else. we are struggling to read through this monster and reference back and forth. you, iuite honest with know there are some improvements in here, but i have not seen a lot of them. i am confused by some of these things with regards to three misdemeanors and the standards, the crimes involving purple to did we have now. it should be a misdemeanor, one within five years. how does that make sense with these three misdemeanors? what are significant misdemeanors? this is not a legal term we are significant -- we are familiar with. it is something we struggle with already. this makes a lot more questions

than i think it provides answers. it will take a lot of digging through this. i have seen some things with regard to getting affiliation. we areeral concept, about that. but a finer stand correctly, it says things like if the person says i am no longer a part of the gained comment -- again, they get to have this probationary. . i find that highly problematic. people under 18 years of think -- of age could possibly continue to be a gang member. the dui thing is something we have been asking for for a long three duiive someone convictions, if i understand that correctly, i find that problematic. these are folks who are driving one ton of metal down the highway at high speeds. they are dangerous.

it is happening a lot. we know that. to give them three shots at that, a felony dui, as a law- enforcement enforcement officer i think that is a no go. are onolks who probation, to get on the probationary status, if i understand this correctly, they get three misdemeanor criminal convictions that are not traffic offenses and then once they get on the probation we continue to let them get criminal convictions if i understand them correctly. i know we are redefining a lot of words here, but if that is the case i think we redefine probation as well. i cannot understand why someone committed a federal crime by entering united states illegally. it is a crime. . not just an administrative offense. we give them probation for that and now we allow them to continue to break our nations criminal laws and to stay in the united states? i just do not understand it.

i apologize. i wish i could give you a better answer, but we are struggling to sort through this thing right now. >> it is only 844 pages. thank you. >> [no audio] >> yes, sir. >> people would not be deported. >> thank you. i want to commend you to have done in utah. that has provided a blueprint and a model for a lots of arizona who have been looking for a rational humane approach to this problem. thank you for helping lead the way there. would you agree with those in the last panel that said they would define amnesty as any -- anything that allows anybody who has crossed the border illegally under any form, whether

it is rpi status or anything else. is that what constitutes amnesty? >> anytime you set aside the rule of law and give someone the chance to some other special thing, whether they pay a fine or something, that would be amnesty. that doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea, but i do believe in truth in advertising. >> do you agree with that? amnesty, regardless or they are legal a fine toward status? >> in my statement, i prefer to it as legal status, i did not use the word amnesty. but if you're going to put me to it, i guess i would say i do believe that once you allow that person to stay in the united states after they have come here in the violation of the law, i would believe that most americans would think that would be an amnesty. thank you. >> your organization has a lots

of big grassroots presence around the country. i suppose into have taken a public role here on this that you have heard from them. what are you hearing? >> people understand the system we have is roped in. you have the number of high tech programs we need to. we cannot have the secure border. we need to have protection to know who is in the country and people understand that if people have to go through paying fines, back taxes, that is not amnesty or not nothing. a lots of money. some people may be so rich they think a couple thousand dollars is nothing, but it is not for most people. with earned legal status, you see it in the center-right movement. i see the business community, the small businesses in

particular, this is not a fortune 500 issue. farmers and dairymen and ranchers around the country have been explaining that they need this. you see this with the various communities. communities ofs faith are focused on this and saying that we need to move forward on this. from the center-right perspective in terms of the reagan republicans and conservatives, absolutely, yes. it is very powerful. the arguments against it are malice in the left and do not carry a lots of weight with reagan republicans. what are the things i used in my testimony with the nine mins of -- nine myths of immigration, this is back in the 1980 posturing reagan's presidency. it walks through all the things you hear from people who did not like the irish and did not like the jews and did not like the asians and all the previous groups. now we are told this new group

is going to be a problem coming into the country. every time we have been through this, whether they are criminals or all go on welfare or don't want to work, we have found that not to be the case. the heritage foundation did a good study the reagan years. which made in 2006 the case that, of course, immigration and more immigration makes us a richer country not a poor country and ofps out on questions deficits and economic growth. from a center-right perspective and one of the groups with talk to in law enforcement as you go state to state, the austin chief of police is a big advocate of comprehensive -- when we were in indianapolis, same thing. we always talk to our police officers and to the guys with badges as well as the business community and religious community. thank you and thank you mr. chairman.

around.l do the last i know it has been a long day for the witnesses. when the fbi was investigating travel, he did not find his trip to russia. they typed in his name incorrectly. our bill requires that travel exit data be base by swiping the passport. we are making sure it is machine-readable on exit. dhs says this would have helped the fbi in this case. do you agree? >> yes. absolutely. >> good. one example of many where we are tightening things up. that would have been relevant. now, i mentioned this to your previous witness from your group. i guess you are the second witness. you folks are not only against illegal immigration, but you are for producing -- you want to

reduce the amount of illegal immigration and so do we. we go to great pains to try to do that, but you want to reduce illegal immigration. is that correct? >> yes. a more moderate pace of immigration. >> you have a those economic levels? what do you think of the high- tech thesis that we have proposed? are you against that part of our proposal? > i think -- >> why? >> you can let in high-skilled workers without fear of consequence. .here might be other concerns are you displacing americans. are you making american business increasingly different. negatives. lots of >> you saw that we do make provisions in the that they have to hire americans first. let me ask you.

having trouble going through it. it is a long and complicated bill. it has been online for six days and this will be on my for three or four weeks before we mark up. that is unusual for a complicated bill to be out there and available for as long as it is. if youat you have seen, had to say you support or do not support the sections of our proposal, let me ask you this -- would you support giving a green foreigner who graduates, gets an ma or phd in spam and an american university? >> it is about 5000 6000 people a year. we can certainly do that. ma is a very different thing. phd is rigorous and specialize. >> so you will do it for the hd's. >> ok. there is one part of the bill we agree on. you do not agree

with that? >> no. it is very different. >> just in stem. science, technology. >> you can easily imagine where people are just issuing an ma exclusively's approval can get a visa. do not think that would make sense. >> i think we have gone over time. i have one mins left. have one more round. >> we have not had around and she has to be gone. we said we would finish at 5:00. i will give you one more question. how is that? andand you can submit -- any member can submit questions in writing which have to be answered one week later. questions have to be submitted by 5:00 wednesday. go ahead. what specific border security

measures does this bill require in the non--high risk sectors. i have struggled to review the bill in that level of detail. sectors, what i understand is, why do they have n effectiveness rate? focusing him on appre -- only focusing on apprehensions? i added that in.

i do not understand why we do not have it as a brought up race. broadrought up race -- base. only happenan between sectors on an annual basis. smugglers move every few weeks. >> thank you very much. and we not just add new responsibilities, but $3.5 billion for personnel detection equipment. the drones, you name it, which is a lot. i added $600n and million to border in 2010. the overall effectiveness rate went up from 68% to 82%. if you conclude the defense money that senator rubio put in

the bill, that is $4.5 billion. most experts think you will get a higher effective rate. we are not just giving new responsibilities. we are giving them new personnel, new equipment, things like that. with that, i want to thank my colleagues for staying. i think my witnesses. it has been a long day. i want to thank the chairman. this is been a aero, extensive hearing. all different points of view have been spoken about. secretary napolitano will be here. onepanelists will have week to answer your questions in writing, long before we go to mark up in early may. with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> the committee has announced another hearing on an immigration bill tomorrow. we will have better life for you in the morning starting at 9:30 eastern on c-span. we have lots more on the subject www.c-e for you at span.org. david leopold. he admits he has not read the entire immigration bill.

his opening statement makes that clear. this atrociouso, immigration bill. we welcome your comments and tweets. >> always evolving. for the financial services sector, most recently we had the denial of service which is a way of flooding a network with information requests that cause a slow down or stoppage of service. cyber criminals are after money. >> there have been attacks on the system and have been well- publicized. it is confidential information. you cannot want people to know how the air traffic control system works. it is difficult to explain air traffic control and a soundbite. , but sot -- every day

far the major attacks we have had have been on a customer information system or things of that nature. they have not been attacks that keep me up at night which are the ones that would do damage to our infrastructure. >> protecting critical u.s. infrastructure from cyber attacks, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> congress is back in session this week. the senate dabbled in -- gaveled in. a procedural vote on that is expected later today. the houses back tomorrow. helping people with pre- existing medical conditions get insurance. of thehe drawdown government's helium supply. c-span and this on

c-span2. >> she was bright and political, which is why she and the lincoln got together in the first place. she spoke several languages fluently. she was extremely well educated. she has all of these things going for her but she had suffered a series of tremendous emotional blows. >> three of her four children died. one in the white house, one shortly after her husband's assassination, sitting next to her at the theater. the kinds of grief this woman was going through were amazing. she was demonized for that. they thought she was crazy. will, we found that she was not crazy. mary todd was a very significant person and i hope someday we get a better view of the range of things that influenced her life, not just the tragedy. mary todd lincoln and

our conversation with .istorians also on c-span radio and c-span .org. reform is the topic of the message to the president. he is a student of westminster academy in fort lauderdale, florida. he is the second prize winner in cams year's student competition. >> we talk about crisis. i think education in america may be in a crisis. >> what about education and united states? ? is that going in the right direction? wax no. -- >> no. if that is a very tough problem. , test graduating class scores fell. reading drop to the lowest level in four decades. >> the children in our schools

today will be the first generation of children who are less educated than their parents. >> freedom is like a secret ingredient that makes america special. freedom is what america is about. freedom has enabled the greatest minds to dare to mount and it has enabled america to become a country of innovation. freedom has allowed us to explore into the unknown. it has allowed us to become the strongest nation in the world. but what is the driving force behind freedom? education. without education, great man would not dare to speak up. without education, our forefathers would not be able to establish the free nation. that is why i believe education is the most important element in our nation.

they say we live in an increasing global society. so, i wanted to know how america students ranked on a global scale. >> if you look at where we were several decades ago, versus where we are now, we are not 21st, 23rd, and 26 out of 30 developed nations in science, reading, and math. there is no doubt that we are in the midst of a crisis. >> just to make sure, i decided to get a second opinion with the headmaster of that any school. >> number two for the amount spent per pupil in the world. we are number two and yet we are falling behind further and further when it comes to our international rankings in education. , 70 --every 190 craters ninth- for every 100 graders, 70 will graduate.

only turkey students will enroll -- only 30 students will enroll in the second year of college. from a will graduate four-year institution. that is simply not good enough to keep united states competitive in our global economy. >> in order to get an outside opinion about what is going on in america, i travel to germany where i met a man who gave me -- who told me how things were done in germany compared to america. there are many specialist in america, but our system in germany is very dynamic. our workers are used in very many areas of the work. my american rent was supplies -- see the same staff.

all three eggs are learned in the apprenticeship area it is the world -- apprenticeship. >> apprenticeship? not good enough? i needed an explanation. that is what i spoke to the headmaster of whence mr. -- of westminster academy. >> one of the challenges is that changing. it was a time in which the mother, father, children, could be the home in which they would be growing up with both parents. now when students go to school they only have one parent or there are issues in the home, they are bringing those challenges into the classroom. i think what schools should do is help children love to learn, love to read, become thinkers.

become problem solvers. become those who can cope with difficult situations. >> i then visited northeast high school where i met the vice principal who told me his thoughts on the issue. >> i think we are pushing every child into college prep when most kids may not want to go to college. they may not have thought about college. and they get to the high school then they fail, we call them a failure. .echnically, we failed them by the eighth or ninth grade year, we know that maybe your interests are not in college. maybe you are on a vocational track. with a vocational degree, and you can be successful. there are kids who graduate with a diploma in their hand with no skills. think of a child at age 14. age 18, they and could be getting a job preparing who knows what.

it then they get a debt by going back to college or a vocational school. we need to meet all the needs of the children. not just college. .> i met up with an ap teacher >> i think it is a wonderful program. what are the things that are untestable that are positive is classroom. how do you test maturity? how do you test responsibility? how do you test discipline? there is a lot of pressure on the teacher to have a certain test score for their class and therefore my success or failure as a teacher is based on those test scores. you have as when tremendous amount of failure across the board?

you change scores or standards? >> everyone is handcuffed to a system that requires them to teach to a test. teachers have dumbed down the curriculum. so ouru been dumbed down students can pass and do well on them? we try to load them up with facts or standardized testing and our nation continues to slip because our students have lost the ability to do critical thinking and fall in love with learning. thomas jefferson once said that if a man expects to have liberty without education, he will expect what has never been and will never be. >> america is free because it is a nation of intellect. we cannot let another class graduate unprepared for the test that lies ahead. if we let another year go without doing anything to improve the education sector, we will let deceit prevail in our nation. that is why on this year up to thousand 13, i urge you, mr.

president, do please reform the education sector. to workrage children academically so that we can lead america as our forefathers did. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> congratulations to all the winners. to see more, go to studentcam.org. >> the legal case against the how the -- how the case will be of the survivor of the boston bombing. >> we will prosecute this terrorist our civilian system of justice. under u.s. law, united states citizens cannot be tried in the terry commissions. it is important to remember that since 9/11 we have used the federal court system to convict

hundreds of terrorists. the system has repeatedly proven that it can successfully handle the threat at we continue to face. there are a number of examples of this. high profile. the times square bomber. he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. the so-called underwear bomber was sentenced to life in prison. he is nownational -- currently in the system. we have acquired valuable intelligence from him. this is absolutely the right way to go and do the appropriate way to go when it comes to united its citizens, -- when it comes united states citizens, it is against the law to try them that way.

>> the heritage foundation posted a discussion today with mike bee of utah, on conservatism and that feature of the republican party. this is 45 minutes. thank you very much. i want to offer my best wishes to everyone here at heritage as it embarks on what is an exciting new era. i want to make clear i spent much of the first year that i served in the senate choking or half joking that jim demint should run for president. this is not exactly what i had in mind. perhaps he misunderstood me. the thing that makes jim demint a great leader is the same thing that has always made people like

max balding and the heritage foundation so valuable. you are sharing assistance on making a positive case for conservatives, what conservatives are for. in washington is common for both parties to succumb to easy negativity. republicans and democrats are opposed to each other in an outspoken partisanship. it is what almost gets the most headlines. this negativity is not appealing on both sides. that helps explain why the government is increasingly held in such beauregard by the american people. for the left, the defensive crouch at least makes sense. liberalism's main purpose is to defend its past gains from conservative reform. negativity on the right to my mind makes no sense at all. the left has created this false narrative liberals are for

things and conservatives are against things. when we concede this narrative we concede the debate before the debate begins. do it anyway.f us we take the bait. a liberal proposal is an idea, we explain why it will not work, and we think we have won the debate at that moment. do, we reinforce that false narrative that i am winning battles while losing the war. the must be frustrating to scholars at the heritage foundation who work every day producing new ideas, ideas about what conservatives can before. but it should be more frustrating to the conservatives around the country that we as elected conservatives were elected to serve. after all they know what they are for, so why don't we?

perhaps it is because it is so easy in washington to forget. in washington we debate public policy so persistently that we can lose sight of the fact that policy is our means, and they are not ends. we think we were for the court taxes or spending restraint, but those are policies we advocate. they're not what we're really four. what we're for are the good things that the bucs policies will yield to the american people. what we're really for is the kind of society that those policies would allow the american people to create. together. too oftenne idea missing from our public debate, it is that idea, together. in the last few years we conservatives seem to have abandoned words like together, compassion, and community, as if they're only possible meanings

were as some sort of secret code for stateism. collective action does not only or even usually mean government action. conservatives cannot surrender the idea of community to the left. when it is the vitality of our committees upon which our entire philosophy ultimately depends. or can we allow one politician's occasional conflation of compassion and bigger government to discourage us from emphasizing the moral code of our world view. conservatism ultimately is not about the bills we want to pass. it is about the time -- the kind of nation we want to be great if conservatives want the american people to support our agenda for the government, we have to do a better job showing them our vision for society. and reconnecting our agenda ticket, to that vision. we need to remind the american

people and perhaps, too, the republican party itself that true and proper end of political subsidiary is social solidarity. ours has never been a vision of isolation owners. it is instead a vision of the husbands and wives, parents and children, neighbors, volunteers, osses --ions, bauci the essence of civilization is cooperation. this is something conservatives should celebrate. it is what conservatism is all about. freedom does not mean you are on your own. it means we're all in this together. our vision of american freedom is of two separate but mutually reenforcing institutions -- a free enterprise economy and voluntary civil sidekick history

has shown both of these organic systems to be efficient at delivering goods and services. but these systems are not good because they work. they work because they are good. together they work for everyone because they intel everyone to work together. self-rdest individuals' interest to the common good for the rest of the community and the nation. they work because in a free market economy and voluntary society whenever your career or your cause, your success depends on your service. the only way to look out for yourself is to look out for those around you. the only way to get ahead is to help other people do the same. what exactly are all those supposedly cutthroat business men and women competing for? to figure out the best way to help the most people. that is what the free market

does. it rewards people for putting their god-given talents and their own exertions out in the service of their neighbors. whenever money they earn is the wealth they create. dow you that they add to other people's lives treat the matter who you are or what you're after, the first question anyone in a free market must ask him or herself is, how can i help? what problems need to be solved? what can i do to improve other people's lives? the free market does not allow anyone to take. it tells everyone to give. the same process works in our voluntary civil society. conservatives commitment to civil society begins with a family, and the paramount institution of marriage. but it does not end there. just as individuals depend on free enterprise to protect them from economic oppression, families depend on meeting eating institutions to protect

them from socialite crest social isolation. that is where the social order per north of our civil society, man. dislike for-profit businesses, non-profit religious, civic, cultural, and charitable institutions also succeed only to the extent they serve the needs of the community around then. forced to compete for voluntary donations, the most successful be eating institutions in a free society are at least as innovative as profitable companies. if someone wants to make the world a better place them a free society requires he or she do it well. social entrepreneurs note the only -- that only the best super kitchens and theater companies and soccer leagues or the best conservative think tanks will survive. so they serve. they serve their donors by spending the resources wisely, they serve their communities by

making the better places to live, and they serve their beneficiaries by meeting their needs better together than they can beat them acting alone. freedom cannot divide us. big government does appear it is big government that turns citizens into supplicants, capitalists into cronies, and cooperative communities in to special interests. freedom unites us and pull this together an alliance our interests. it draws us out of ourselves and into the lives of our friends, neighbors, and perverse renters. crossed us upward toward the best vision of ourselves. the free-market and civil americanse not things need more protection from, their things americans need more access to. liberals scoff at all of us treat the attack free enterprise as a field theory that privileges the rich, exports the poor, and threatens the middle class. our history proves exactly the

opposite. free enterprise is the only economic system that does not privilege the rich. instead, it incentivizes them to put their wealth to productive use serving other people, or eventually, lose it all. free enterprise is the greatest weapon against poverty ever conceived by man appeared at me ask, the free market exploits the poor, how do liberals explain how the richest nation in human history and its citizens descended mostly from ever prince who came here with nothing, nor does free enterprise threaten the middle class trip free enterprise is what created the middle-class. the free market created the wealth that liberated millions of american families from subsistence farming, opening up opportunities for the pursuit of happiness never known before or since in government-directed

economy street progressives are dismissive of our voluntary civil society. they did not trust free individuals to look out for each other or solve problems without supervision. they think only government, only they possess the moral enlightenment necessary to do that. to be blunt, elite progressives in washington do not believe in communities at all. they believe in community organizers. self-anointed strangers, once with ivy league degrees, fashion grievances in an agenda to address those grievances. progressives believe the only valid purpose of community is to publish the agenda of the state. but we know from our own lives that the true purpose of our communities, is instead to accomplish everything else. to enlighten our days, to ennoble our children come to strengthen our families, to pursue our japanese, and protect

our freedom to do so. this vision of america can -- conservatives seek is not an ayn rand novel. it is a society of plane kindness and looking out for the other fellow, too. the great obstacle to realizing this vision today is government dysfunctions. this is where our vision must inform our agenda. what reforms will make it easier for entrepreneurs to start new businesses, for young paid -- couples to start families, and for individuals to bring to life flourishing new partnerships? what should government do, and what should government not do to allow the free market to create new economic opportunity and allow society to create new social capital?

the conservatives are not against government. the free market in civil society depends on accountable government to enforce the rule of law. that grow onems government like mold on otherwise probably good bread -- corruption and inefficiency. it is important -- it is important government corruption standefficiency are what today between the american people and the economy and society that they deserve. to combat those pathologies, a new conservative before much of that should center around three principles -- the quality, diversity, and sustainability. let me explain. the first and most important of these couples is the quality. the only way for the free market and civil society to function

is to align the interests of a strong and those of the week, to have everyone play by the same set of rules. as how our principle government has already press has always corrected itself. in the past the problem was political discrimination helped to disconnect it down. today the specialty is dispensing political privileges to prop the well-connected up. in either case, the corruption is the same, official inequality, twisting the law to make some people more equal than others, making it harder for some to succeed even when they serve, and harder for others to fail, even when they do not. have corporate welfare, businesses receiving subsidies that smaller companies do not receive. we have on civil society, politicians funding large,

institutions, based on political favoritism rather than merit. we have ventured socialism, politicians funneling taxpayer money to politically correct businesses that cannot attract real investors. we have regulatory capture, industry leaders influencing the rules governing their sectors to protect their interests and hamstringing innovative challenges. the first step in a true conservative reform agenda must be to end this kind of preferential policy making beyond simply been the right thing to do. it is a prerequisite for burning the moral authority and political credibility necessary to do anything else. why should the american people trust our ideas about middle- class entitlements when we are still propping up big banks? why should they trust us to fix the tax code when we use their tax dollars to create

artificial market for uncompetitive industries? why should they trust our vision of a free society when we give special privileges to is opposed nonprofits like planned parenthood, public broadcasting, agricultural checkoff programs, and the export-import bank why should americans trust us at all when too often we do not trust them, when we vote for major legislation negotiated in secret without debating it, and without even reading it, it deliberately exploiting the people from their own government? to conservatives, a quality needs to mean equality for everyone. the second principle to guide our agenda is diversity. or as you might have heard a call elsewhere, federalism. the biggest reason the federal government makes too many mistakes is it makes too many decisions. most of these are decisions the government does not have to make and therefore should not.

every state in the union as a functioning constitutional government, and just as important, each state has the unique political and cultural history with unique traditions and values, and priorities. progressives are fundamental -- are fundamentally and tolerant of this kind of diversity. they insist on imposing all of their values to everyone. 50 states are another community to be organized, brought to heel by their betters in washington, d.c. . this flies in the face of the founders and of the constitution. it also flies in the face of common sense and experience. the usurpation of state authority is why our national politics has become so dysfunctional and so intolerably rancorous. we expect one institution, the government, to set policies that cover all lives of 300 million people spread across a

continent. of course, it is going to get it right most of the time. that is why successful organizations and the free market and civil society are moving in the opposite direction. consolidate,ents businesses decentralize pretty well washington insists it knows everything, or as agents rely on networks and customizable problem-solving. we cannot be surprised that washington has assumed greater control over transportation, health care, and so much else, all of those increasingly centralized systems failing at exactly the same time. conservatives should seize this opportunity not to impose our ideas on these systems, but to kraut source the solutions to the states. that the perspectives and values of each statecraft craft its own policies and see what works and

see what does not work. vermont's pursuit of happiness needs its people to want more government and utah's less, then who are politicians from the other 48 states to tell them they cannot have it? would we tolerate this kind of official intolerance in any other part of american life? a pugh study last week down americans trust the state governments twice as much as the federal government, and their local governments even more. this should not be a surprise. it should be a hint. state and local governments are more responsive and accountable than washington, d.c.. it is time to make them more powerful as well. given past, conservatives federal power had intended to overuse it. we must resist that temptation if we want to be a diverse movement. we must be a tolerant movement. the price of allowing

conservative states to be conservative is a lot of liberal states to be liberal. federalism, constitutionalism. but we must make this a fundamental principle a pillar of our agenda. that brings us to our third guiding principle. once we eliminate policy privilege and restore political and policy diversity, we can start insuring policy sustainability. once the federal government stops doing the things that it should not come it can start doing the things it should. the national defense and intelligence. federal law enforcement and the courts, immigration, intellectual problem, and even the programs of senior entitlement programs. once we clear on a central policy from the books, politicians will no longer be able to hide from the public or from their constitutional

responsibilities and limitations. congress will work together to reform the problems government has created in our health-care system. we can modernized our regulatory system. we will be forced to rescue our senior programs from bankruptcy, and we can reform our tax system to eliminate the corporate code's bias in favor of big businesses over small businesses, and the individual code's bias against savings and investing, and our parents, our ultimate investor class. that is how we turn the federal government must unsustainable liabilities into sustainable assets. the bottom line of all of this is controversies in that building over there, the really big white one with the dome, need to start doing what conservatives in this building already do. think long and hard about what we believe, why do we believe

it, and most of all remember to put first things first. for conservatives, the first thing is not our agenda of political subsidiary. is our vision of social solidarity. it is a eighth village -- a vision of society as an independent network of individuals, families, formal and informal groups working together to beat each other's needs and enrich each other's lives creaking it is of a free- market economy that grants everyone a fair chance and an unfettered start in the race of life. it is of a voluntary society that strengthens our communities cannot protect vulnerable, and minds the gaps to make sure no one gets left behind. color, and just, sustainable federal government that protects and compliments free enterprise and civil society, rather than presuming to replace them.

this provision cannot realize itself. the left, the inertia of the status quo, and the entire economy of this city stand arrayed against it. realizing it will sometimes require conservatives to take on entrenched interests, pet policies, and political third rails, many of these will be interests traditionally aligned with and financially generous to the establishments within both political parties. sometimes it will require us to stand up for those that no one else will. the unborn child in the womb, the poor student in the failing school, the reformed father languishing in prison, the single mom trapped in poverty, and a splinter in neighborhoods that desperately need all of them. if we believe this vision is worth the american people been for, it is worth elected conservatives fighting for. what we're fighting for is not just individual freedom.

but the strong, vibrant communities that free individuals formed. the freedom to earn a good living and build a good life, that is what conservatives are for. thank you very much, and may god bless america. >> we have time for some questions. mica fun there is a wandering around. if you identify yourself, we can go from there. we will start in the back. >> thank you for your talk. i am curious about your use of language equality, for city, kansas and ability. these are words used about community, and when they are think of leftist

policies -- policies. they think sustainability and .ashing business how can we use this language in a way that we start redefine it for a mass culture? >> one way of explaining it is it is not always about republicans versus democrats. a lot of the time in this people.nt versus the equality and diversity does not mean the same thing. when you take a government- centered society out of the equation and point out what we want is the kind of outcome that can best be achieved and produced by a voluntary, free society and by free-market economy, people can understand what we are for. what we are really for can be best achieved without excessive government interference and with minimal intrusion from the government.

>> gordon johnson, retired businessmen. we seem to have gotten ourselves in a position come despite what you say, of protecting the 1%, of protecting inequality. do we jet flight the things you're saying into the benefits -- how do we translate the things you're saying into the benefits of the 40%, at the bottom, which is what henry ford found. he needed customers, he needed to build up a 40% at the bottom. we seem to be protecting the 1% at the time. what you are saying is going to benefit the 40%, but how do we get that across to people? >> part of it is when we try to conversation from the exclusive domain of the federal

government, it gets easier for people to understand what it is we are really for, and it gets easier for people to understand where for everyone benefiting, when you take government out of the patient and the government's mandatory approach to everything, it does not have to be a zero-sum game between this top percentage and that bottom percentage. we can all benefit and ike debt -- a dynamic, free economy. the minute we start taking the conversation away from a washington, d.c., centered polkas, it becomes easier for people to understand what we want, which is for everyone to prosper. and for us to stop talking about government allocating special perks to this group or to that group. in the back. heritage foundation.

you mention social on abortion, this idea of including your social impact within the bottom line id of your business. what do you see as the relationship between social on abortion and social welfare, and what the ec as the relationship between government and social of entrepreneurship? it andit encourage languish and state hands off. >> that question is central, which is the best way that government can support that kind of behavior is for government to establish a neutral set of rules that govern everyone, a set of rules that is designed to create an environment of law and order rather than one of chaos, and then make sure those rules are implemented in an evenhanded fashion so as not to advantage any particular business at the expense of another. that is the best way government can support that, and when the

government tries to go beyond that or promises to go beyond that, it usually ends up picking the winners and losers, and it becomes destructive to the free market economy and to the interest we're trying to achieve through the free market economy and a robust, free civil society. >> francis johnson, should teach it planning initiative. we have a challenge before us of gaining more of the general public or least a set of them we'rell see the wisdom talking about here, and then, if you will, support legislators and senators for congress who believe the same thing. enlarge these

people may be to start with the end game, tell some stories about particular people with names or surrogate names that have been benefited by the jail whohe father in receives compassion and a fair process, a child in school who has been unable to go through the sixth grade at learning more because of the free school system and so on. but starting with some examples of real people, this is the way we know jesus made his philosophy known, and add that to our mix. we must cover the points that you have covered. they are compelling. but this will help put flesh on the bone and build us a bigger

audience. >> wonderful suggestion. thank you. more parables'. >> this is something we have talked about, but also at heritage we are doing more precisely to do that, to combine the research, the policy research, which is the bedrock with those stories and getting a sense of where the american people are, how they want to hear that communicated to them, to what we're calling the american perceptions project. >> it helps translate to why these are not abstract ideas but that individuals benefit from them. i just had a question about crony capitalism. what are your thoughts on the collection of legislators who

support from both sides of the aisle, the extreme left, and from the right also? >> assume you are referring to the marketplace fairness act. i cannot support that, and that is apart from the fact that i have an ordinary rule that causes me to proceed with caution any word -- any piece of legislation that has the that" "fairness" in it. there are some reasons for it. there is the absence of any preemption provision so you continue to have states that are trying to expand their reach as far as the nexus requirement, the blended under north pagoda v. quill, so there is nothing to prevent state action that would extend its reach for the

grid at a broader level, i worry about federal legislation that allows states to make tax collection agents out of state businesses that have not purposely avail themselves to the benefits of doing business in the taxing jurisdiction. and therefore have no ability, and no direct ability as a constituent to have an input on the legislative decisions of that state. as for why there is such an eclectic and broad support base for it, i do not know exactly what to make of it. i understand concerns that are animating it. i people in utah who support it, including several of our best state legislators who have been strongly behind this piece of legislation, and i cannot want to disparage them or the good intentions they have, but i cannot support it. as far as housow brought the support base will be, i cannot

say. when we had a resolution on this in connection of the budget resolution, the the burress senators voting for that, for this proxy resolution, parks the amendments to the budget resolution, was in the mid 70's. it remains to be seen whether there will be that degree of support once we get to the actual bill. >> good questions. heritage foundation. i am curious as to which policies weekend before which help promote these vibrant communities which we as conservatives want to foster. >> the single most important policy from which so many of the other things i talked about today would naturally flow would be federalism or, as i described it today, versus a. regional, political

viewpoint diversity that we need to be focused on when we talk about federalism, which is that more people in america would get more of the kind of government they want and less of the kind of government they do not want if they are free to make as many government-related decisions at the most local level possible, at least within their state or within the political subdivision of their state, like county or city level. i think that is the single best way we can get there. get your take on whether the bombing suspect in boston should be tried or declared an enemy combatants, and senator rand paul said today that the immigration bill should be delayed until more of the details are known about the bombing.

could you weigh in on that? part cannot tell me what rand paul said? >> that the immigration should be put on ice until we know more about what happened in boston to see if there are holes in the system that allowed it happened. >> ok. as to the second point, i do not necessarily agree that it needs to be put on hold for that. i think we need immigration reform and it needs to proceed. rand paul and i agree on most things, but as to the particular timing of the consideration of immigration legislation, i would have to talk to him about that, but i do not see the need not to be holding hearings to examine this legislation put forward. in some way, what happened in boston this week is yet another reason for us to examine our current immigration system and how -- and figure out how best

to reform it. there are a lot of good things in this bill, a lot of things i do not like, but i think if you separate out a lot of the different provisions in this bill, you get a lot more support for it. instead of holding the entire package hostage until there is a political consensus necessary to pass all that, let's start with areas where there is a broad- based bipartisan consensus come out like in the areas dealing with porter security, -- with border security, the fees some modification. once those things are standpoint of political realities and from the standpoint of and for stability, which will be in a better position to address the question of what to do with the 11 million. as to the suspect, it is important to point out that some people are tempted to conflate two questions, one dealing with whether or not he is mirandized

and he has not been mirandize, the other dealing with indefinite detention. those are the night -- those are not the same questions. the fact that he was not mirandized upon his arrest does not mean that he can or should be detained indefinitely without trial. it simply is a practical matter for any criminal proceedings, to mean that evidence gathered of custodialime interrogation will not be admissible in court. it does not mean that the government is going to or that it should detain him indefinitely without trial. my understanding is he is a u.s. citizen, was apprehended on u.s. soil, and i am not aware of any circumstances that i believe would warrant holding him in definitely without trial. we have a bill of rights, and i am aware of no condition that

his present that would give the government of party to get around that. if we want -- it will be interesting to see what arguments come up, if anyone that wants to argue that he is somehow subject to the exception identified in a case, i am interested in that discussion, but i am not aware of anyone making that argument at this point. the heritage foundation. with regard to the debt limit, i am wondering what you personally think is really important for part of anys see as decision to increase the debt limit. >> excellent question, and is important for us to be thinking about these things. i feel strongly that we need permanent structural spending reform any time we are asked to

raise the debt limit. i feel so strongly about it that i wrote a book a couple years ago called the freedom agenda where a balanced budget amendment is necessary to restore constitutional government. the few hundred people who never read that book, have all cried out tears of joy is as they did so, but they saw what i believe is that we should not raise the debt limit before we put in place of permanent spending reform mechanism. i have thought that each time the issue has come up so far, and that is so far my belief, that you have to fix the underlying problem. one of the reasons why we got a credit rating downgrade about a year and a half ago was because he raised the debt limit without putting in place robust permanent structural spending reform mechanisms, and i think that is still what we need. i have a question about

cronyism. a lot of the special favors that come out of the cuts that are are the result of lobbyists doing their job well. these people have a first amendment right to petition the government for what ever favors that they want picked by question is, how do you neuter the ability of government to hand out these special favors and still protect the rights of people to try to get them to the first amendment? , it is not about the lobbyists, it is about the people they are lobbying. last time i checked lobbyists do not enact legislation. lobbyists are not in control of the levers of government. they might play a role and influence those who are, but those are the people who need to be held accountable. in many respects, lobbyists play

a similar role within the legislative branch of government that lawyers play within the judicial branch, and they are both equally he did. [laughter] one hit ato go from profession, that of the practice of law, to another even more heated profession, a politician, and especially they did brad of politician, a member of congress. we as members of congress are lost -- less popular than all kinds of things. they said we are less popular than the castro brothers -- in america, not in cuba -- less popular than a written out procedure. [laughter] i'm pretty sure we are more popular than the influence of the virus, but the virus is catching us. anyway, to get back your question, people have a right to

be represented in court and they also have a right to express their viewpoint to the elected representatives in government, including those serving in the legislative branch of government. positionrhaps in my like to blame lobbyists. lobbies are not the problem. the problem is the people they are lobbying. if we did not like the citizens -- if we do not like that decisions coming out of washington and, then that is what we have to change. we cannot say that lobbyists cannot lottery. does that mean a citizen cannot make a suggestion to a lawmaker, and if a citizen can do it, why cannot this isn't retain the services of an intermediary? if the citizen can use the services of an intermediary, how can we block that? >> betty cooke, chevy chase

republican club. about a week ago, a person spoke at cato, and she talked about fact that ideas, the the democrats have captured the vocabulary of america, so they have changed their name recently to progressive, which gives a very good feeling to those who are uneducated. and we, as conservatives, are the true traditional liberal, but we have given up that terminology because it has other connotations, and we call ourselves conservatives, and we understand we are conserving our

constitution and the way of life, but they use it to say you are backwards. how do we turned this thing around and provide for the american people the understanding of the meaning of the vocabulary that is being used? >> is a great question. that really is the entire or much of the entire purpose of my speech today, to explain why it is and how it is we need to move away from just talking about what the arc against, to talking about what we're actually four, that we are actually for something and there is something which is very similar to what others want. is just the way we want to get there is better, proven, has worked, and has worked well. in other words, what we want is for american pet families to be

strong, we want them to prosper, we want them to have economic opportunities to better their circumstances, and we think the very best way of doing that is to allow for a robust voluntary civil society to function within a free-market economy. if you allow those things to happen, that is the condition in which we can flourish. it is important to remember government cannot create these voluntary institutions of civil society. it cannot create them. it has the power to weaken them, it has the power to destroy them, but once they are destroyed, a cannot rebuild them or read-create them. that is why it is important the best away from that washington- centered approach to everything, and we explain what we're for and make the case as to why the way we propose to get there is the better one and in fact the only one that will work.

>> with that we will cut it off. america'sserving liberating ideas. thank you for that great presentation, and please join me in thanking senator lee. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> for the financial services sector, recently we have seen district of denial of service attacks, which is our way of flooding a network with information requests that cause a slowdown or a stoppage of service. money,riminals are after as was willie sutton in the base of robbing banks. >> there have been attacks on the system. they have been not talk too much about. it is it difficult to explain aircraft control. >> we get questions every day on sources, but so far the major attacks we have had have been on customer information systems or things of that nature. they have not been attacks that keep me up at night, which are

the ones that would do some damage to our critical infrastructure. >> protecting critical infrastructure from cyber attacks, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> she was bright, political, which is why she and lincoln got together in the first place. she spoke several languages fluently. she was extremely well educated. said she had all these things going for her, but she had suffered a series of tremendous emotional blows. three of her four children died. one died in the white house, one after her husband's assassination, sitting next to her at the theater. the kinds of grief this woman was going through are amazing. that, demonize her for thought she was crazy. we found that she was not crazy, but mary todd was a very significant person and i hope

some day we get a better view of the range of things that influenced her life, not just the tragedy. >> more on mary todd lincoln life tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c- span radio and c-span.org. morning, a discussion on the legal definition and history of the term "and the combat that." of thee examination military court martial system. calls,our emails, phone and tweeds, "washington journal" of tomorrow will morning at 7:00 eastern on cnn.

janet napolitano at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow also on c- span. graham speaks on a decision not to prosecute the as an marathon bomber enemy combatants. >> i understand we will have a moment of silence for the victims in boston. that is appropriate, and the president is right to lead that effort. the families who have lost loved ones, to those who have been injured, our heartbreaks as a nation. to the people of boston, you make us proud by the courage you have shown. to the law enforcement officials and intelligence community, god bless you for

your hard work and your bravery. what brings me here today is i have been informed that the obama administration has indicated this suspect in boston will not be treated as an enemy combatants. i strongly disagree with the obama administration's decision to roll out and in the combat the status for the suspect at this time. i believe such a decision is premature. it is impossible for us to gather the evidence in just a few days to determine whether or not this individual should be held for questioning under the law of war. the decision by the administration to try this individual in federal court is a sound decision. it is the right decision. military commission trials are not available in cases like this. i wrote the 2009 military commission act. i have been the judge advocate for over 30 years, along with

the help of many colleagues. we created a system for foreign terrorists. we purposely excluded american citizens. i have all the confidence in the world in article 3 courts at the federal level. they do a terrific job. i have confidence in our military commissions system. the decision by the administration not to proceed in state court in massachusetts i think was the correct decision. the death penalty will be available at the federal level. this is clearly in my view a candidate for a case to be deemed an act of terrorism. here is my concern. for over 30 years, i strongly support the concept that no criminal defendant should ever be required to internet -- to incriminate themselves why they are in custody. that is a long-held tradition in american jurisprudence, ending

military and civilian setting trick no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate themselves in a criminal case. every nation at war should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence. these are not mutually exclusive concepts. i believe our nation is at war. the enemy is radical islam. defined as taliban, allocate it, and out -- and affiliated groups. the question i have, is there any association between these two individuals and groups i tot named to a lout in-- allow any combatant status? it is inappropriate ask questions of any defendant accused to elicit information to use against them in court.

there is ample evidence here on the criminal side. a first-year law student could prosecute this case. what i am worried about is what does this individual know about future attacks or terrorist organizations that may be in our midst? we have the right to gather intelligence under the criminal system. we should not question someone without their lawyer present. along the law of armed conflicts, when you try to gather intelligence about future attacks against rendition, there's no requirement for a lawyer. it would disturb me greatly if this administration is relying exclusively on the criminal justice system to gather intelligence. if we have to clear the questions that we're going to ask to gather intelligence, to the terror suspect's lawyer, it would greatly diminish our diminished -- our ability to control the process. the last thing i want to do is turn intelligence gathering over

to the suspects and their lawyers read, i hope the administration will look long and hard at the evidence and keep on the table the ability to interrogate the suspect for the intelligence gathering purposes against the tax we may face. none of the evidence on the intel side can be used in a criminal court. we're not prosecuting a crime. we're trying to protect the nation. intelligence gathering is a national security in denver. prosecuting someone in federal court is a criminal enterprise. over the coming days and weeks we will have discussions about how best to defend our nation. the best way we can defend america is to realize we are at war. we did not choose this war. we did not want this war. it has come to our shores twice. how can we defend ourselves against a vicious enemy who is

recruiting american citizens to their cost in our own backyard? to fight the war within our values and our legal structure? we provide lawyers. al qaeda it does not. that makes us stronger, not weaker. we have the ability under the law of war to gather intelligence in a way to make sure that our country is safe from a future attacks. the ability to talk to individuals who may know about plotting organizations our future device is a long held concept. i am asking this administration to leave on the table the option if the evidence warrants to designate this individual as an enemy combat it. what do we know? we know these two individuals embraced radical islamic thought, that there is ample evidence this was an attack inspired by radical ideology.

they were not trying to rob a bank in boston. they slaughtered innocent people because they view us, the united states, as a colonial power, a christian nation. but the muslim world can be a friend. i have traveled out the world and have that many people throughout the world of the islamic faith in our great allies and great friends of america. unfortunately, there is a small everyty who would kill muslim, jewish, gentile, christian, a person who disagrees with then. it is imperative we protect the homeland. the desire of this enemy is to strike us in our backyard. i do not wish america to be the battlefield, but is. is the choosing of our enemy to make our homeland the battle. all i ask is within our values

and our legal system, we retain the right to defend ourselves. embrace with interrogation and under the law of border, not torture. i along with senator mccain spoke loudly during the bush years about interrogation techniques that i thought were out of bounds in terms of our law and who we are. but let me firmly say this. having been a military lawyer for 30 years come, i know the difference between prosecuting crime and trying to prevent a future attack. the ability to have access to this suspect without a lawyer present to gather intelligence about a future attack is absolutely is central to our national security. , over time, the evidence suggests after a reasonable opportunity to make this decision this suspect is not fall into the statutory definition of an enemy

combatants, i will accept that result. i think to rule that decision out now is premature and is unfair to those who are trying to protect us. i do not know how in the world we can make that decision by monday afternoon, given the recent nature of this attack. i will continue to afternoon, given the nature of this attack. inill continue to work with the laws to create values and on march 25, i wrote to the judge advocate general community all of our military lawyers, i ask them 15 questions. can read those for yourself. i will not bore you. but on march 25, i asked questions that apply to what happened today. i have seen this coming for a very long time. i have taken the floor on multiple occasions at the u.s. senate to prepare our nation for

this day. this day has finally arrived, the day when evidence suggests that two people, one an american citizen, the other in legal status, took up arms against our country. the evidence right now to me is ample and overwhelming to suggest that the attacks in boston were inspired by radical jihadist and their ideology. jeopardize anyo criminal defendant right to a public trial. that public defender assigned to this case should vigorously defend these men. by doing so, you make us all safe. but having said that, it is imperative that we have time with the suspect not to prove his guilt or innocence. there is ample evidence of that. but to gather intelligence as to what he may know about terror oranizations that may exist,

others that may be planning to attack our country. i hope that the congress will look at this case and look at our laws and come to the conclusion i have come to. we are at war. we're going to be at war for a very long time. and we have to have the tools to defend ourselves within our values. one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks, gather intelligence for national security purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will never be used in a court of law against the suspects. it will be used to to protect us. the last thing we should do in the times we live is to limit our ability in the criminal- justice system. in essence, you will have a turnover the evidence gathering process to the accused and their

lawyer. thank you. >> right now, people anitere watch list can still fly. what do you think of that policy? >> i think anyone who is on the terrorist watch list should not lose their second amendment rights without the ability to challenge that determination. i think senator kennedy was on a terrorist watch list. there have been people who have come up on the watch list. i did not want that as the basis to take someone second amendment rights way. what i would suggest is that if you come up on the watch list you have the ability to say, no, i'm not a terrorist. that would be the proper way to do that. as to an enemy combatants to termination, every person determined to be an enemy ommand high as the ability -- has the ability through the hideous process to go before a judge. no one is without this process.

under the criminal justice system, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the statutory elements of the crime charged. one system is designed to bring justice to a criminal act. the other system is designed to protect us against future terrorist activity. view, exist iny harmony in our law. i would urge the obama administration to use both systems. >> what about the older suspect's name when they were traveling? >> i spoke for 45 minutes with the director of the fbi. i think all of us are wondering if the russians told us about this guy being an -- a radical islam as in 2007, how could we miss it. according to the fbi, they took .he information seriously

they got a report and never got a reply. apparently, the misspelling of his name was such that it did not pop up in the system. did he intentionally misspelled his name or did the russian make an error? all of the radical activities

that this guy was engaged in, how could we miss this? needof the tools that we are not there. is this a question of the fbi not using the tools available to them? or is this a question of there are not enough tools in the toolbox? we need to learn that. time itis the second has happened, right? >> it is the second time -- let me say the pattern that bothers me the most. underwear bomber was mirandize within 45 minutes. i do not care if you read people their miranda rights, but do not shut down the intelligence gathering process. on the way he agreed to cooperate is the fbi flew to his family and his parents convinced him. hadtimes square bomber, he pakistan taliban ties and was read his miranda -- render rights and we never interrogating him for

intelligence gathering purpose. osama bin laden's father-in-law was never designate and -- and an enemy -- son in law was never designated an enemy combatants. can you imagine what he could tell us? he was the spokesman for al qaeda after 9/11. there was a disturbing pattern of not gathering intelligence when that opportunity exists. i will grab a pen and pad and we will go next door and i will answer questions about what you have about the fbi. we're way to observe a moment of silence here for the folks in boston. >> she was very bright, very political, which is why she and lincoln got together in the first place. she spoke several languages fluently. she was extremely well educated. she had all of these things

going for her, but she had suffered a series of tremendous emotional blows. >> three of her four children died. one in the white house, 1 cervelli after her husband's assassination. the times of grief this woman was going through were amazing. but folks demonize her for that, thought she was crazy. not, we find out she was crazy. mary todd was a very significant person and i hope that we can ofe day better use the range things that insolence her life, not just a tragedy. >> more about mary todd lincoln in our conversation with historians tonight on c-span and on c-span3 and also at c-span radio and c-span.org. >> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, hina shnmsi

of the aclu and cliff made discuss enemy combatants. lisahe army colonel judge marie windsor takes your phone calls and tweets. right after "washington journal" homeland security secretary janet nepolitano will speak before the senate judiciary committee. you can hear her comments live at 9:30 a.m. eastern also on c- span. now today's white house briefing with press secretary jay carney. he talked about why the surviving boston marathon bomber will be prosecuted in the federal court system and not as an enemy combat in the military tribunal. this is 50 minutes.

andgood afternoon, ladies gentlemen. thank you for being here. before i take your questions i wanted to let you know that on thursday afternoon, after the formal opening of the george w. bush presidential library and museum, the president and first lady will travel to baylor university in waco, texas, to attend the memorial service for those lost and injured in the deadly explosion at the fertilizer plant there. with that, i will take your questions. >> thanks, jay. it appears as though the suspect in the boston bombings is having some level of communication with investigators. can you give us any sense about how much information he's been able to provide to authorities, and are they getting any closer to being able to identify a motivation in the attacks? >> let me say a few things. first of all, at the request of the hospital, the fbi did put out a release this morning on the suspect's condition and that is that he remains in serious condition. when it comes to the ongoing

investigation and the prosecution of the suspect, i am not going to give a play-by- play -- for obvious reasons. there is a comprehensive investigation underway. as you heard the president say on friday, we need to know everything we can about why this happened, what the motivation was, how it happened, and all of those issues are under investigation. as for the process that the department of justice and the fbi are using to move forward in the investigation, they can comment on that. but i think it is entirely appropriate when you have an investigation like into a terrorist act that that process be protected so that it is as effective as possible. though,the president, getting a play-by-play briefing on what authorities are able to

get from this man at this point? >> well, as you saw on saturday, president obama convened the national security council here in the situation room to review the events in boston and he was updated on the apprehension of dzhokhar tsarnaev and the related investigation. he was also briefed by the leadership of the intelligence community about our ongoing efforts to combat terrorism and protect the american people. he commended the work done. and it is extraordinary work and worth noting the work done by law enforcement officials at the state, local, and federal level last week, the remarkable period from monday to friday the act of terrorism in the terrible bombings and the tragedy, the immediate coming together of all relevant authorities at the state, local, and federal level to investigate these acts; the ability through remarkable work to provide to the public video photographic images of the

suspects; and then the successful apprehension of and bringing to justice of the suspects on friday night -- that really is quite remarkable. and so the president commended the work that was done and underscored the need to continue gathering intelligence to answer the remaining questions about this terrorist attack going forward. and the president has been and will continue to be updated regularly on the progress of the investigation and related matters. but as i said in answer to your first question, this is an ongoing investigation that is really still in its early stages. >> there are some questions being raised by lawmakers about whether the fbi was thorough enough as it looked into the older brother in 2011. is the president comfortable with that review that the fbi did at that point? has he asked for there to be any further review of what the fbi did at that point?

>> well, let me say, first of all, as you heard the president comment on friday, the fbi did extraordinary work in responding to this attack -- identifying the suspects, and working with state and local authorities to bring them to justice. with respect to the events in 2011 that you mentioned, the fbi has spoken about this and put out a statement. it is clear from that, that the fbi followed up on the information that it received about tamerlan tsarnaev, the older brother. and did not find terrorist activity, domestic or foreign. as for the president, you heard him say on friday, and i think it merits repeating -- i don't have it here, but it merits repeating in that he called for answers to a number of questions, as i said earlier: why this was done, what the motivations were, how it was done, any possible associations that the suspects may have had. and all of this is being investigated. and i think that you absolutely can expect that all the agencies involved as part of the broader

investigation are examining these issues.

>> well, i think we agree with what some of the coauthors of the bill -- including, i believe, senators mccain and graham and rubio -- have said, reasons why we need is because it will enhance when implemented our national security. and it is another reason why we need to move forward with this very important bipartisan legislation. that is certainly our view. >> are you worried that the effort may lose some momentum now because of this? >> well, i will simply say that it should not because of the reasons i just mentioned, and that republican authors of the legislation as well as democratic authors of the legislation i think have said, which is that one of the reasons why we need comprehensive immigration reform is we need to bring out of the shadows the roughly 11 million residents of this country who are here illegally. the process of moving along the earned path to citizenship and the various hurdles that have to be cleared in that process allows for much more information to be known by the relevant authorities and agencies about these individuals. and that's very important. it also enhances the entry and exit procedures that are part of the immigration process. so we will continue to press forward in a bipartisan way with congress to move this legislation because it's the right thing to do for the middle class, for our security

and for our economy. >> some senate republicans -- lastly, jay -- are saying that the boston suspect should be treated like an enemy combatant. is that something that you guys have looked at or made a determination on? >> he will not be treated as an enemy combatant. we will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. under u.s. law, united states citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. and it is important to remember that since 9/11, we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists. the effective use of the criminal justice system has resulted in the interrogation, conviction and detention of both u.s. citizens and noncitizens for acts of terrorism committed inside the united states and around the world. the system has repeatedly proven that it can successfully handle the threat that we continue to face. and there are a number of examples of this -- high- profile: the times square bomber, faisal shahzad, pleaded

guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, was sentenced to life in prison. warsame, a somali national who was a member of al shabaab and has close associations with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, is now currently in this system and we have acquired valuable intelligence from him through the process that is allowed in the system. so this is absolutely the right way to go and the appropriate way to go. and when it comes to united states citizens, it is against the law to try them in military commissions. >> does the president believe that there is a system in place to adequately target and deal with lone operators, those who may not be tied to some kind of larger extremist organization? >> you have heard the president and many others address the evolving threats that we have as a nation. as we have taken the fight to al qaeda and have met with

significant progress in removing from the battlefield senior members of al qaeda central, we have seen other threats develop and emerge. and john brennan, the president, many others, the attorney general have spoken about those threats. i would not in any way characterize the suspects in this investigation in any way with regards to that question because that is something that is being determined by investigators and prosecutors. but there is no question that the threat remains. it remains from al qaeda central, even though it's been decimated. it remains from affiliates of al qaeda, as we've talked about -- aqap and the like. and it remains within the context of your question, self- radicalized actors, individual actors who pose a threat. inhave to remain vigilant the face of all those threats.

and the president, of course, expects our various agencies within the national security apparatus to do just that. >> i want to follow up on an earlier question about whether or not the president feels like law enforcement, the fbi, adequately dealt with this issue back in 2011. during his briefings, has he been asking specific questions about what law enforcement knew and is he comfortable with the answers that he's getting? >> without getting into specifics of the meetings he has had, he has been thoroughly briefed and has asked a host of questions, as you would expect. and what i can tell you is that the fbi -- as the fbi itself has said -- thoroughly investigated the information that it had received in 2011. that included checking u.s. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest,

travel history and plans, and education history. and the fbi, as you know, interviewed tamerlan tsarnaev and family members and at the time did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign. overallof the investigation into these two individuals, into the bombings in boston and obviously the events later in watertown, there will be a whole picture i put together to find out exactly what led to these bombings, the motivations that were behind them, any associations that may have existed if they did. and that is part of the process that's being undertaken now, now that these suspects -- one is obviously deceased and one is in custody -- there is a process underway to thoroughly investigate the whole matter. >> and as that picture is being painted and put together at this stage, is there any indication at all that, looking back on it now, there are some things that pointed to what happened?

>> well, i would point you to the statement the fbi made and that i just repeated, which is, looking back on it now at this time, the fbi did thoroughly investigate this matter when it received information from a foreign government and went through the process that i just described. all of this obviously will be part of an investigation into an ongoing matter, and that is the investigation and prosecution of the suspect in custody. >> jay, i've got two things. onst, a quick follow immigration. senator rand paul is saying at process least that the should be slowed down. we understand what happened in boston. and he wrote a letter saying, "why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the united states from the chechen republic in russia, an area known as a hotbed of extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? were there any safeguards? could this have been prevented?" my question: do you think rand paul has a point at all, that what happened in

boston reflects something wrong with the current system of immigration that should cause us to slow down a little bit and figure it out? >> we believe that we need to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform for a whole host of reasons and the benefits that reform will provide to our country, to our economy, to our security. and we agree with those coauthors of the legislation in the senate who have made the point in recent days that enhancing our security is one of the reasons why we should press forward with comprehensive immigration reform. speculation about this particular matter is fine, but this is under investigation. the fact is that comprehensive immigration reform, as anybody who has looked into it and can attest, would enhance our security for all the reasons that i talked about at the top. >> okay. now i'll ask about the faa furloughs, which started yesterday. a group of almost the entire

airline industry, including air traffic controller unions, flight attendants, pilot unions, and the industry itself, have written denis mcdonough and the white house a letter saying that the faa should be granted flexibility so they don't have to furlough the air traffic controllers. what do you say to this broad coalition? they say that other agencies have been given such flexibility and they believe the faa should have the same flexibility. >> let me give you some facts. the department of transportation is required by law to cut about $1 billion between now and the end of september; $637 million of that comes from the faa. the faa has initiated a series of cost-saving measures for personnel and non-personnel related, including a hiring freeze, restrictions on travel, termination of certain temporary employees, and reductions to contracts, among other savings. but furloughs cannot be avoided. seventy percent of the faa's operations budget is personnel. the faa must furlough 47,000 employees for up to 11 days

between now and the end of the fiscal year. and that's why secretary lahood, here in this room two months ago, called on congress to replace these dumb sequester cuts and put instead in place a smarter approach to deficit reduction. remember, this is a result of sequester that was never meant to be law. and it was never meant to be law for reasons like this -- because the across-the-board nature of cuts. and in an agency like dot and the faa, because they're personnel-heavy, the effect of these cuts inevitably will be felt at the personnel level. congress can act. it could have acted in the past. it could have brought down the sequester and avoided it entirely. congress could act now to do that. republicans in congress could decide that the victory party is over and it's time to get serious about the economy, get serious about the effects of

the sequester on americans across the country in a variety of ways, and either postpone it by buying it down or take up the president's balanced approach to broader deficit reduction that would eliminate the sequester entirely. >> but this coalition, again, it's the industry, it's all the unions. i mean, theoretically, they know a little something about how the faa operates. they point out that the bureau of prisons, the meat inspectors, other agencies have been able to figure out another way. are they just wrong? >> i think i enumerated the ways in which the faa has already done what it could to mitigate the effects of the sequester. the faa, unlike other agencies, is personnel-heavy, and in the end, you cannot avoid -- when 70 percent of your budget, of your operating budget, is personnel, you cannot avoid, when the cuts are as deep as they are in the sequester, the kinds of actions that are taken. these furloughs, that's the unfortunate fact of arbitrary, across-the-board cuts like this.

differentlyagencies depending on the makeup of an agency's budget, what kinds of actions they can take within the law to mitigate the impacts of the sequester. in this case, those actions have already been taken. so it's an unfortunate result. and it is unfortunate, just as those families whose children are no longer on head start or will not be on head start because of the arbitrary nature of the sequester's impact, those seniors who are not getting meals on wheels because they can't participate anymore because funding cuts. there are a variety of effects of this, and none of this was necessary, nor should it be necessary going forward if republicans would simply revert to their previous position that they held vociferously, which is that the sequester was terrible policy that shouldn't become law, that would do damage to our economy and to job creation. they were right then. when they called it a political victory and a tea party victory, they were wrong -- at

least wrong when it comes to the american people and the economy. bill. >> when the russian government asked the fbi or the u.s. government and the fbi to check on the activities of tamerlan and the fbi reported back they had no evidence of terrorism, there was also a report that the fbi asked the russians for further information, which was not forthcoming. is there going to be an attempt to find out what else was in the pipeline? >> well, as you know, the president spoke with president putin on friday and we have a useful, cooperative relationship with the russians when it comes to matters of counterterrorism. that has been true in the past and will be true going forward we expect. and that coordination and cooperation is ongoing, and i think that that applies specifically to this matter and broadly on a host of issues. it also applies to our counterterrorism cooperation with a number of countries, which is very similar.

>> do we know why their cooperation apparently failed in this earlier request? >> well, the fbi has put out a fairly detailed statement about that time period and its investigation into the elder tsarnaev, and i would refer you to that statement. what is and was the case is cooperative a relationship with the russians. it is also certainly the case that information passed on by a foreign government would not necessarily lead to the arrest of an individual. we have a process in this country where we have to find grounds for action, and the fbi did an investigation and did not find grounds for action at the time. >> on another subject, what gives you confidence the agreement reached by the core group of the friends of syria this weekend will actually keep weapons out of the hands of extremists in that country? >> well, wendell, as you know,

we have upped our provision of nonlethal assistance to the syrian opposition. we have increased our humanitarian assistance to the syrian people. i would also, since i would also, since i am discussing syria, the romance if i did not know that we were appalled by reports that hundreds of syrians were killed this weekend in a damascus suburb and while that drags out, we cannot lose sight of the men, women and children whose lives are brutally cut short and reaffirm our solidarity with the syrian people. at the president's directive, we will continue to work with the coalition to determine how the new $123 million in nonlethal assistance will help to build

this area the people deserve -- deserve. the people a portion will implement the .irective to provide support we extend support to include other nonlethal supplies which will be determined in leadership.with this is a process we have engaged in for some time where we have increased aid as we make assessments about the .pposition we have recognized the syrian opposition coalition and we have been increasing our nonlethal assistance. together, with our international partners, we are working to bring about the day when the syrian people can bring about and that future can

not and will not include president decided. >> can i asked the question again? the agreement itself. we have, what about that gives you confidence other countries lethal assistance will not fall in the hands of extremist? >> we work with the syrian opposition and we have recognized the coalition because we recognize their about democracy for the syrian people and their intentions to bring about a more democratic, prosperous career -- and free syria. this is an issue that we have discussed repeatedly over the last many months now, and it is the kind of assessment that we make all of the time about providing assistance to the syrian opposition. we obviously make the decisions that we make based on the aid that we provide. we work with partners and allies

in this matter. other countries have to make the decisions they make based on the assessments they have. >> a lot of the criticism of friends of syria, of syrian government, bashar al-assad, has but it wasussia, said this week that the meetings of the friend of syria complicates the crisis. as russias culpable in holding back the effort to get rid of the sheer al-assad -- al-assad? >> we pursued a process with regards to syria that was not successful because of actions and the dose taken by the russians and the chinese. -- taken by the russians and the chinese, and we

have had discussions with both countries, particularly the russians, because of their relationship with the assad government, why we believe it is essential to bring about a future in syria without assad because he has so much blood on his hands, the blood of his own people. these are conversations we have all the time, and it goes to the point that i made previously that we have areas of disagreement with russia and darius will cooperate and we are clear and candid about both of them. >> the north koreans had apparently moved the missile to the coast in preparation for a test. we have not heard much from them in the past couple of days. do you feel the crisis is -- i will not say over, but the tempers have cooled? >> we have monitor the

situation closely and carefully. we have said for some time we would not be surprised if there was a missile launch because it is in keeping with a pattern of the savior we have seen before and unfortunately that pattern of behavior is one that flies in the face of north korea's commitments to the united nations, to denuclearization, to not pursue the kind of missile development that it has pursued him and we are working with partners and allies to isolate and pressure north korea to get into cease and desist this kind of provocative behavior, to dial back the provocative and unhelpful rhetoric, and to choose the path open to it, the path best for the north korean people, and that is one that recognizes the need to de-nuclear rise the korean peninsula and to north korea -- for north korea to

abide by commitments. say thatrecent action it is working? >> we would not be surprised if action is taken by the north koreans, we remain in a state of monitoring and vigilance with regard to the developments we have seen in recent weeks. we are not prepared to say this episode is over. the fact is that korea remains out of compliant -- north korea remains out of compliance, continues to say and do things that serve no other purpose than to heighten tensions and further isolate the north korean people and the north korean regime with negative consequences for the north korean economy and the north korean people. so, we will continue to monitor this. peter? >> ahead of the president's trip to waco, texas, ahead of the

explosion, it it was last inspected in 1985 and it was much more nitrate and was used in the oklahoma city bombing. as a result of the findings, safety advocates have said the u.s. government needs to better crackdown on facilities like osha inting stats about particular, with a ratio of employees dropping genetically. is the white house said -- the white house satisfied that a sufficient number of people are doing this? >> as many of you noted friday night after 10:00 p.m. when the president came to the briefing room to discuss the apprehension of the boston marathon bombing suspect, he made also the point that our thoughts and prayers are with the people of west texas where

so many good people lost their lives, so many lost their homes and many are injured and still missing. the president has spoken with governor rick perry and the mayor of west texas. the president has directed his administration to make sure the people have what they need to rebuild. the president approved an emergency declaration that includes public assistance. on the issue that you raised, this is currently an active investigation. the cause is still unknown. it is too early to point to specific violations of any head of the national response team of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives along with a criminal investigative team from the environmental protection agency are on scene to investigate the proposal -- explosion. chemical plant safety is a high priority and all the relevant agencies including the department of homeland security

, the epa, the department of labor, including osha, the department of transportation, the department of agriculture and the council safety board work together within authorities to address this tragic situation and provide technical assistance as requested. >> one follow-up, and then i want to move quickly back to boston, and on the issue of guns it was lost in the conversation last week. we are learning more details about firearms, at least one rifle carried by these two men during the firefight that took place thursday night. the cambridge police department said there was no record of tamerlan tsarnaev having a license to carry. that theythis say had access -- does that say anything to underscore the message you are trying to get across?

>> this is an active investigation, still in its early stages with regard to the boston bombings. there is no question with the bombings themselves and the events in watertown friday, there was a lot of firepower deployed, but beyond that, which is information that is obvious to anyone paying attention, i would not characterize the investigation or what weapons may or may not have been recovered. on a separate matter of the efforts that the president spoke about last week, which is the need to continue to take commonsense measures and make them law to reduce gun violence in america, the president remains committed to that, and it was a sad day, as the president said, in washington, when a minority of united states senators voted against not just the majority of the american people, not even a large

majority, 90% of the american people, who understand that expanded background checks, you know, making better the system that already exists to prevent people who by law should not have access to weapons, was the right thing to do and remains the right thing to do. >> this is a different issue. does the president support legislation allowing states to allow internet retailers to sales taxes and if that were to pass, would he sign that into law? >> we think the marketplace fairness act would level the playing field for small retailers. , smallwhile local business retailers follow the law and collect sales taxes, many big business online and catalog retailers do not collect the same taxes, putting local and neighborhood-based small businesses at a disadvantage and

because these out-of-state countries -- companies are able to play by a different set of -- citiesizen state and states lose out on funding. this administration has considered the legislation and met with a broad array of people on the issue, hearing from governors, mayors and the business community on the need for federal insulation to level the playing field for our businesses and address sales tax fairness. the bill has an important exception for small business and has a bipartisan support. this is simply about leveling the playing field so that bricks and mortar businesses that depend on customers to survive ae not playing at disadvantage, competing at a disadvantage, selling products that others are selling online but not collecting taxes. i was prepared for the question.

>> whose decision was a to try the terror suspect the way he will be tried in the civilian court? >> this is a matter decided by the department of justice and the attorney general at the top of that. the whole national security team decision and let's be clear, there is not an alternative for a u.s. citizen to be tried in a military commission by law. >> did the president weigh in on this? >> the president has had many briefings on the boston bombings, the investigation and the process -- progress made so far. i will not characterize his specific comments except to say the entire national security team that he leads is in agreement on this approach. >> looking ahead at the bush library dedication, can you characterize what president obama's relationship is with

george w. bush? that there is and he believes there is a special bond between those who have served their country from the oval office. there is no job like it. there are very few in our history that have held it, and there are, fortunately, a number of living former presidents, and the president looks forward to meeting with all of them. he is firmly of the view that every one of his ancestors that he will be -- predecessors that he will be seeing in dallas approach their job trying to do the best for the country, they all loved their country, are all patriots and made policy decisions they still what they thought was the right thing to do. >> how much is he relied on mr. bush for any advice? how often are they in touch? >> i will not get into private

conversations the president has had with any of his predecessors except to say he looks forward to the event and he had a nice conversation with former president george w. bush when he was here for the portrait unveiling, but beyond that i will not characterize their conversation. what is the president's role thursday at the dedication? >> we will get more details. max will he be speaking? >> we will get more details. >> a follow-up on the immigration question in relationship to boston -- what is it about immigration reform that connects to this event? these men did not seem to be in the shadows at all. >> i am not making any assertion with regards to immigration reform, but i'm simply saying it is a fact as senators marco rubio, john mccain and others have been saying, is our nation will be

more secure if we had a comprehensive immigration reform. there is a national security benefit from them commenting this legislation. i have tried hard in answering some of these questions about specific matters relating to this investigation, to back up and not characterize or color anyone's views with regards to the white house on that investigation, but to make broader point about, in this case, immigration reform, about the need to look into the whole array of questions that are raised by the boston bombings including motivations and possible associations, again, without making assertions specific to this case. >> last week at this time, there still seem to be hope that the background check bill could pass. as the white house looked back at what went wrong, what could

have been done better and what is the next concrete step the president will take to revise -- revive this legislation? >> i do not have a legislative land to present to you. if i did, i might not present it. but, let's be clear what happened. 90% of the american people were in favor of one thing. a minority of united states senators derailed that. what the president made clear in the rose garden is that this will happen. the time will come when this legislation passes, we expand and improve our background check system because it has to be done. it is common sense. americans from across the country, from different regions , rural and urban, red, blue and purple states, support this approach.

it will happen. as we have seen in our history, congress sometimes takes time to catch up to the american people, and this is one of those times. i do not have a specific next step to tell you about. we are continuing to implement the 23 executive actions the president made as part of this copper has a proposal to reduce gun violence, but we will clearly continue to pursue legislative remedies that are common sense that respect our common -- second amendment rights and have the support of the american people because they are common sense about this, including gun owners to support expanding background checks. an editorial, gabrielle giffords, a remarkable expression of disappointment, and commitment to action. those are sentiments the president shares.

>> from the legislative strategy component of this, is there a look back at why the president was not able to commit -- convinced enough members of his own party as well as republicans to vote against this -- four for this -- for this bill? ,> well, this just happened and everybody here, from the president, down, worked hard to bring about this legislation that in the end congress has to vote on. the fact is, and the president noted it, and it is essential to thatl, this is an issue 90% of the american people support, 90% of democrats voted for, 90% of republicans voted against. -- 90%republicans voted

of republicans voted with 10% of american people. there was a decision made hardly within the republican party that they did not need to listen to the majority of the -- made within the republican party that they did not need to listen to the majority of the american people, and there was no plausible reason laid out for why we should not make better a background check system that has been in existence for a long time and has been effective where it is in place in inventing criminals from getting weapons, which is a goal that we all share. why not make that system better in a way that does no harm to second amendment rights, in a way that 90% of the american people support, that gun owners support, that avid sportsmen and women support, we should do that. the president believes we should do that and the fact that a minority in the senate disagreed with, not just the president, but 90% of the american people,

i think, is unfortunate, and they will go down as being wrong on this because it will happen. >> did he speak personally to the democrats that voted no? >> everyone here was involved in the effort, having conversations with lawmakers and other stakeholders. some conversations the president had have gotten out but i will not detail every one of them. >> you do not think he could have twisted more arms are done more personal one-on-one lobbying? >> i think the president spoke to this issue numerous times, and he made numerous phone calls and had numerous meetings. his entire team engaged in the process completely and thoroughly. a phone call from the president in this case matters. the fact that 90% of your constituents support something

and you vote against it should matter even more. there are those that chose to ignore the 90%. >> the boston suspect has been charged while in the hospital. when the public safety exception actually expired? can you confirm that he has been told his right? >> as you can imagine, there is a firewall in this matter. i was not aware the indictment had been announced. i will take you at your word, and i will have to say that these are matters the department of justice rightly both evaluates and answers questions on. we will have to point you to the justice department on that. what i can tell you is we have a long history here of successfully prosecuting

terrorists and bringing them to justice. -- president fully elites believes that that process will work in this case. >> like follow-up, the fbi statement put out about the 2011 investigation talked about searching for derogatory information to telephone conversations and internet websites. can you tell us whether they [indiscernible] to ease drop on website use before interviews question mark >> the fbi -- interviews? conducted the investigation, searching for derogatory information and any connection to terrorism foreign and domestic and made the

assessment. i would direct you to the fbi. >> and did you say he did not know if the suspect has been mirandized? >> again, this happened while i was up here. >> can you save the president has been dished if the president has -- if the president has been updated on when this could happen? >> the president has been allowancend there is for not giving miranda warnings to get critical intelligence. it is not important for me to characterize the specific procedures in place during this investigation in its early stages, but it is important to note the public safety exemption

exists and why it exists. change your mind? are you coming to texas? perfect confluence. >> perfect storm. >> i would not say storm. >> did you say he would speak at baylor or simply attend? >> i said attend. we will get back to you on how he participates. >> you rightly point out that 90% of the public in the polls support back on check expansion , the what does it say about the president has future ability to get legislation through if he cannot convince congress to pass something where there is 90%? what is the future if on something like this he is not able to do it? >> at me say a few things -- we made clear from the beginning that all of these pursuits

legislatively have not come to pass in the past because of the obstacles that exist, and unfortunately continue to exist and presumably led a minority of united states senators to vote against the vast majority of the american people. this president will continue to push on that front, as well as on all of the initiatives he has put forward to help our economy grow and create jobs, as well as on country has of immigration reform, which, again, we are pleased with the progress, but nobody should be making assumptions about the fact that this, too, is challenging work and we remain committed to working with the congress to bring it about. the case it was during the discussions about legislation to reduce gun violence that at various times it was conventional wisdom that one of at least 2 -- the

background checks or limiting the capacity of ammunition clips, would be easy. well, you are shaking your head , that i got those questions -- that is in the bag, but what about the assault weapons ban? the fact is this is hard because there are institutional reasons. there are legal reasons and there are other, i am sure, personal reasons for why senators chose to vote against the vast majority of the american people but we will continue to pass -- press the case and the president made clear this is round one, and this will happen because it is the right thing to do, entirely common sense, and it will result in lives being saved and that is what we should be about. i do not have a legislative strategy to lay out to you, but there will be a round two and there will be continued effort by the administration and by the american people who want this done and advocates like

the newtown families and gabrielle giffords to make it clear that it is unacceptable when the a -- the united states senate defies the will of the people. >> is that something that will have to wait until after the next midterm? >> i would not predict that at all. i think we need to press forward and make it clear that, most importantly, to the voices of the american people who support this sensible action, that they are not happy with the result. they are not happy with a senate that entirely dismissed the position of the vast majority of the people. continuing on the gun issue, does the president have a philosophical objection to using the power of the presidency -- the american public has just been educated by the lincoln film, where the president used

threats, almost, against people in congress. >> the president promises to use every tool in his toolbox, and the power that comes with the office that he holds to try to make this happen, and he did come a and part of that resulted in the fact that the american people were engaged and made clear that they wanted this done. it was a decision by a minority of united states senators to block the will of the american people, and does the president made clear in remarks that effected his passion on this issue in the rose garden, that this fight is not over and nor should it be. we need to do commonsense things to reduce gun violence, and for those that decide that it is politically safer to flout the will of the vast majority of their constituents, we hope will reconsider that position. >> one more. >> does the president have any

stance on capital punishment in this case, and also, do you think this case will make it more difficult for muslims to immigrate? >> on the first part, i will not characterize any potential outcome to a prosecution that has not yet taken place. the president's views on capital punishment are known and his support for it in particularly heinous instances is known, but i will not comment beyond that. honestly, we need an effective, comprehensive immigration system that is functional for dealing with legal immigration as well as dealing with the 11 million illegal immigrants that are in this country. thank you, all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> she was very bright, very political, which is why she and lincoln got together in the

first place. she spoke several languages fluently. she was extremely well-educated. so, she had all of these things going for her but she had suffered a series of tremendous emotional blows. >> three of her four children died. one in the white house, one shortly after her husband's assassination, sitting next to her at the theater -- the kind of grief this woman was going through was amazing, but folks demonized her for that, thought she was crazy. well, we found out she was not crazy, but mary todd was a significant person and i hope someday we get a better view of the range of things that influenced her lives, not just the tragedy. onmore on mary todd lincoln our conversations with historians and you live tonight on c-span and c-span three and

also on c-span radio and c- span.org. topiccation reform is the to thes roldan message president, a student in fort lauderdale, florida, and a second prize winner in the student can composition -- camera competition. >> education might be in a crisis. >> what about education in the united states? is that going in the right direction? >> no. it is a difficult problem. >> the college board found that test scores fell in a purely low of three sections reading dropping to the lowest level in -- two of the three sections with reading dropping to the lowest level in four decades. the children in our school today will be the first

generation of children who are less educated than their parents. >> freedom is like the secret ingredient that makes america special. freedom is what america is about. freedom has enabled the greatest minds to dare to know and it has enabled america to become a country of innovation. freedom has allowed us to explore into the unknown. it has allowed us to become the strongest nation in the world, but what is the driving force behind freedom? education. without education, great men would not dare to speak up. without education, forefathers would not be able to establish a free nation. that is why i believe education is the most important element in our nation. they say that we live in an increasing global society, so i

wanted to know how american students ranked on a global scale. weso, if you look at where were several decades ago against where we are now in the 2030, we are now 21st, and 26 out of 30 developed nations in science, reading and math. there is no doubt we are in the midst of a crisis. >> just to make sure, i decided to get a second opinion with the headmaster of bethany school. >> we are number two in the amount spent per pupil, and we are falling behind further and further when it comes to international rankings in education. >> for every 100 ninth graders, only 70 will graduate from high school. 44 will go on to college, only 30 will enroll in the second

year of college and only 21 will graduate from a four-year institution within six years. that is simply not good enough to keep the united states competitive in our global economy. outsideder to get an opinion about what is going on in america, i traveled to germany, where i met up with mr. stinn, who told me how things are done in germany compared with america. specialists many in america but our apprenticeship system is dynamic. our workers are used in many areas of the work. my american friend was surprised to see the same staff sweeping and serving. all the necessary things are learned in the three-year

apprenticeship. it serves as a worldwide example and should definitely be maintained here. >> apprenticeships? not good enough? i needed some sort of explanation, and that is why i spoke to the headmaster of westminster academy. >> one of the challenges educators face is the changing of the family. there was a time the mother, the father, the children -- there would be a home growing up with both parents. now where students have one parent or there are issues in the home, they are bringing those concerns into the classroom. what students -- schools should do is help children love to learn, love to read, become thinkers, learners, problem soldiers, those that can cope with difficult situations.

>> i visited northeast high school, lannett vice principal stuart thompson, who taught me this pitiful. chris we are -- principal. >> we are pushing kids into when they fail, we call them a failure. by eighth grade, ninth grade, we know maybe your interest or not with college, but with a vocational track, because at age 18 with a vocational degree, you can be learning -- earning a living. 18 withe kids that are a diploma in their hands and have no skills. 14 in anut a child at apprenticeship, and by 18, they

could be making more money. we need vocational schools for all children. >> i met up with a dedicated ap teacher to talk about standardized tests. >> i think it is a wonderful program, but there are things happening in a classroom that cannot be tested -- maturity, responsibility, discipline -- there is an immense the pressure on the teacher to have significant -- certain test scores for the class, and therefore my success or failure as a teacher will be based on those test scores. what happens when you have a tremendous amount of failure across the board? do you change the test standards? >> now everybody is handcuffed

to a system that requires them to teach to a test, so teachers have dumbed down the curriculum. the standardized test have been dumbed down so that our students can pass them and do well on them and we try to load them up with facts for standardized testing and our nation continues to slip because our students have lost the ability to do critical thinking and fall in love with her learning -- learning. thomas jefferson said if a man expects to have liberty without education, he expects what has never been and never will be. >> america is free because it is a nation of intellect. we cannot let another class graduate unprepared for the tasks that lie ahead. if we let another year go without doing anything to improve the education sector, we will let defeat prevail in our nation. that is why on this year, 2013, i urge you, is to president, to reform the education sector, to

encourage american children to strive academically, to challenge us to rise above so that we can lead america as our forefathers did. >> congratulations to all of the winners in this year's studentcam addition. for more videos, go to student cam.org. hamsomorrow morning, hina s may discuss the legal definition of enemy combatants, and then a former examines the court- martial system. your e-mails, phone calls and tweets. "washington journal post quote live tuesday on c-span. right after "washington journal " janet a. napolitano will speak

before the senate judiciary committee. you can see her comments live at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the museum is meant to help a visitor we live the first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decision-making process and i went through as president, and we hope the museum inspires people to serve, want to serve their community or country in some way. we really did not want to be a school. .e wanted to be a do tank i do not know if there is a lesson there. i do know that laura and i decided to go in a different direction apart from the museum , with a component of programs from which components will emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony of the george roche residential

library and -- george bush library and museum. tune in earlier for a conversation with the former first couple. >> president obama hosted their annual white house science fair earlier today which drew student winners from around the country. this is 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. have a seat. welcome to the white house science fair, one of my favorite events through the course of the year, and i just had a chance to see some of the outstanding exhibits that have been put forward by some of these american -- amazing young people, and let me just start by saying in my official capacity

as president, this stuff is really cool. [laughter] i want to say thank you to these incredible young people for explaining to me what the heck is going on. everyone of you is enormously talented, obviously, but there is also a community of people that help them succeed, and teachers who believe in them and challenge them to do even more. all of them have loving parents and mentors and families. i not only want to give the young people a round of applause, but all the parents, teachers, principals and everyone who was involved, give yourselves a round of applause. [applause] of course, primarily, we are here to celebrate these young scientists and visionaries who dream and create and innovate,

who have asked the question, why not? why not try something better? something that is faster, something that helps more people? that drive, the refusal to give up, that focus on the future is part of what makes america great, and all of you are disciplined in this long line of inventors and creators that have made this the most dynamic economy and the most dynamic country on earth. that is one of the things i have been focused on as president -- how do we create an all hands on deck approach to science, technology, engineering and math, and i am happy to have key members of my science team here today including my chief science advisor john holden, who is here.

francis collins, the tall guy, right there. we have the acting director of the national science foundation astronaute real life and nasa administrator charles bolden. we need to make this a priority , to train an army of new teachers in this subject area, and to make sure that all of us as a country are lifting of these subjects for the respect that they deserve. one of the things i am concerned weut is that as a culture are great consumers of technology, but we are not always properly respecting the people who are in the laboratories, behind the scenes, creating the stuff that we take for granted.

we have to give the millions of americans who were in science and technology -- worked in science and technology, not only -- thec they deserve respect they deserve, but a new way to engage young people so i am going to announce -- [applause] that is our community service director. she is a little bit biased, but i like that in her. she has that get up and go. [laughter] connectogram that will scientists and engineers to students that might follow in their footsteps and other people are stepping up. some of america's biggest tech companies are encouraging workers to mentor young students. media organizations are working with athletes like outstanding fromreceiver victor cruz the new york giants to highlight

how important science and math is to sports. since he is here, did you see the exhibit about the cooling shoulder pads? they had an exhibit. it was very impressive. you had the gatorade coming in. you did not have to reach for it. it would automatically transmit itself into your helmet. [laughter] it could work. we have nonprofits that are helping to organize 1000 summer learning events this year. they all realize how important science, technology, engineering and math are to the future. so, we are doing this together. after all, the science fair projects of today could become the products and businesses of tomorrow. three students, kevin jackson,

alec jackson and caleb robinson, the folks that i talked about and keep in mind, they are in t hird, fourth grade, and they have this idea for cool heads so that victor does not get overheated when he is on the field. think about that, if you are inventing stuff in the third- grade, what are you going to do when you get to college? we just had the university of alabama national championship football team here last week and i know they are interested in this idea because it gets really hot down in alabama. a lot of the students are working on the next-generation of medical research. so, listen to this story -- when pancreatic cancer took the close familys

friend, it inspired him to look for new ways to look for protections. he requested research space, asking 200 times, being turned down 200 times, and finally he got the research facilities he needed with the help of johns hopkins, and developed a pancreatic cancer test that is ister, and cheaper, which not bad for a guy who is barely old enough to drive. where is jack? jack, stand up, because that is spectacular. [applause] that is great work. what you are doing when you were juniors in high school. that is what jack is doing. [laughter] better than i was doing, i promise you. today was not just the third

white house science fair, it is also the 4030 birthday, so i -- 43 earth day, so i want to give a special shout out to those who focused on harnessing energy and creating more energy efficiency. we have a bill like caleb -- people like caleb. stand up, so we can see you. [applause] that build a wind turbine is small and fast enough to be installed in your front yard or on your roof. ,e have john and bridget who together with their classmates, designed and inexpensive press that could recycle garbage like banana peels into briquettes as an alternative for would for the ash -- using 144.

-- wood for fuel. they are in eighth grade. it could reduce carbon emissions, save d4 station, and smoke -- d4 station and reduce smoke inhalation. we have sarah, who is breeding new types of algae. [applause] is breeding new types of algae. she stores this in a lab in her bedroom. so, sarah, you have very supportive parents. [laughter] exactlyrter asked her what is growing under her bed that is going to save the algae and her answer was that can produce more oil for

cheaper biofuels. by the way, john and bridget, i did not have them stand up. i saw them. may be they are still cleaning their hands off. there they are. [applause] thank you. young people say, like these, everyone of them have these kinds of incredible innovations. some of them are already fully operational. some of them are getting fine- tuned. young people like these have did make you hopeful about the future of our country -- have to make you hopeful about the future of our country and it is a reminder for us, the adults, do we have to do our parts, everything we can to make sure we are giving these young people opportunities to pursue their studies and discover new ways of doing things. we have to make sure we are leaving behind a world that is safer, cleaner and healthier

than the one we found. that is our obligation and that is why over the last four years we have made historic investments in clean energy future that we need and today we import less oil than we had in 20 years things to new fuel economy standards. by the middle of next decade, cars will go twice as far on a gallon of gas that we have doubled the energy generated by wind and solar, and creating tens of thousands of good american jobs in the process. we are emitting less carbon pollution in the environment than we have in the past 20 years, we understand we have to do better and it is why we have to invest in more biofuels, fuel-efficient vehicles, more solar power, wind power, and more people going back to work building cars, homes and businesses that are more energy efficient. that is why i propose new job

creating investments in science and innovation, and all of these young people, as young as they are, they will all go to college, and a lot of them will want to pursue their research and their dreams. if there is not a research grant pipeline in place, many of them will not have the resources to invent and discover the things that will make us healthier and more energy efficient and improve the quality of our lives. so, this is not the time to gut investments to keep our businesses -- that keep our businesses on the cutting edge, keep the economy humming and improve the quality of lives. this is a time to reach the research and development that we have not seen since the height of the space race. [applause] that is what we should be doing. that is what we should be focusing on. [applause]

and, that should not be a partisan idea. america has always been about his coverage, invention, --ineering, science discovery, invention, engineering, science -- that is who we are. it is in our dna. that is how this country became the greatest economic power in the history of the world. that is how we were able to provide so many contributions to people around the world with scientific, medical and technological discoveries. that is what these young people here are all about. it extraordinary young people like all of you can use your talents to shape the future for our families, communities and our countries, we have a responsibility to make sure that we -- they have the tools to do it. i want to make sure to say thank you to all of the science fair winners, not only for the good work you are doing, but for the example you are setting for your

peers and your adults. we could not be prouder of you and i want you to keep up your incredible work. part of the reason we're doing this here -- we celebrate our great football players like victor, and outstanding is allns, and that appropriate, but we have to make sure that we are also celebrating, every single day, in our schools, classrooms and in our country, the outstanding contributions of scientists, engineers, mathematicians are providing to us every single day. we want you to know that you have a whole country behind you as you pursue your dreams and your success is going to be our success as well, all right? so, way to go. thank you. appreciate it, everybody. thank you very much.

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats until the president and student exhibitors exit the room. [applause] give them another -- >> give them another round of applause area -- applause. [applause]

thank you, everybody. [applause] >> on tomorrow morning " washington journal," hina sham si and cliff may discuss the legal definition and history of the term and many combatants -- enemy combatants. then, lisa marie windsor

examines the court-martial system. plus, your e-mails, phone calls and tweets. "washington journal" live, tuesday, at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span, and right after, homeland security secretary janet napolitano testifies on immigration policy, speaking before the senate judiciary committee. you can see her comments live at 9:00 30 -- 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> tonight, a look at the boston marathon bomber and how it might affect immigration policy. c-e at 9:00 p.m. eastern, withs "first ladies -- mary todd lincoln."